Edit statistics for Steven Zhang
|
X!'s Edit Counter
Username: Steven Zhang
User groups: autoreviewer, filemover, rollbacker
First edit: Feb 07, 2008 16:53:12
Unique pages edited: 12,716
Average edits per page: 2.36
Live edits: 27,526
Deleted edits: 2,476
Total edits (including deleted): 30,002
Namespace Totals
Article 9052 32.89%
Talk 1111 4.04%
User 1745 6.34%
User talk 9837 35.74%
Wikipedia 4698 17.07%
Wikipedia talk 492 1.79%
File 117 0.43%
File talk 3 0.01%
MediaWiki talk 1 0.00%
Template 365 1.33%
Template talk 21 0.08%
Help 6 0.02%
Help talk 5 0.02%
Category 47 0.17%
Portal 26 0.09%
Namespace Totals Pie Chart
Month counts
2008/02 1644
2008/03 9797
2008/04 3430
2008/05 1923
2008/06 885
2008/07 1540
2008/08 532
2008/09 21
2008/10 0
2008/11 0
2008/12 0
2009/01 0
2009/02 0
2009/03 226
2009/04 355
2009/05 490
2009/06 223
2009/07 362
2009/08 194
2009/09 592
2009/10 298
2009/11 31
2009/12 64
2010/01 12
2010/02 2
2010/03 19
2010/04 24
2010/05 2
2010/06 0
2010/07 0
2010/08 363
2010/09 2
2010/10 1
2010/11 0
2010/12 0
2011/01 6
2011/02 0
2011/03 0
2011/04 3
2011/05 735
2011/06 1014
2011/07 656
2011/08 661
2011/09 345
2011/10 822
2011/11 252
Top edited pages
(hide)Article
280 - 24_(TV_series)
114 - Martha_Logan
106 - List_of_minor_characters_in_24
103 - Jack_Bauer
88 - Bill_Buchanan
63 - 24_(season_7)
54 - List_of_24_characters
49 - Tony_Almeida
40 - Minor_government_agents_in_24
34 - Charles_Logan_(24_character)
(hide)Talk
158 - Prem_Rawat
65 - Sovereign_Grace_Ministries
28 - List_of_minor_characters_in_24
22 - 24_(TV_series)
20 - Second_Intifada
18 - 24_(season_7)
17 - Ming_Dynasty
16 - Divine_Light_Mission
14 - Martha_Logan
14 - Encyclopedia_Dramatica
(hide)User
287 - Steven_Zhang
240 - Steven_Zhang/Status
158 - Steven_Zhang/monobook.js
88 - Steven_Zhang/talknav
83 - Steven_Zhang/CSD_log
44 - Steven_Zhang/Nav
40 - Steven_Zhang/Mediation
31 - Steven_Zhang/List_of_declined_speedies
25 - Steven_Zhang/Adoption
25 - Steven_Zhang/24_Ref_table
(hide)User talk
1604 - Steven_Zhang
210 - Tiptoety
74 - Lucy-marie
60 - Saranghae_honey
59 - RyanCross
57 - AGK
55 - MBisanz/Archive_8
51 - SeanMooney
49 - Steven_Zhang/Mediation/Prem_Rawat
42 - Lan_Di
(hide)Wikipedia
721 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
129 - Dispute_resolution_noticeboard
94 - WikiProject_24
85 - Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
78 - Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-20_Prem_Rawat
71 - Administrators'_noticeboard
64 - Mediation_Cabal/Cases
63 - Requests_for_page_protection
51 - Village_pump_(proposals)
50 - Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-06-22/Abortion-rights_m...
(hide)Wikipedia talk
47 - WikiProject_24/Merger_Discussions
44 - Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_4
32 - Requests_for_adminship
30 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism
30 - WikiProject_24
25 - Mediation_Cabal
24 - Dispute_resolution_noticeboard
15 - Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard
14 - Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-05-06/Corrib_Gas
14 - Requests_for_mediation/Prem_Rawat_3
(hide)File
7 - TomLennox.jpg
5 - 24_Season_4_Cast.jpg
5 - Jack_Bauer.jpg
4 - Marthawater.jpg
4 - AudreyRaines.jpg
3 - 24_Season_2_Cast.jpg
3 - 24_Season_3_Cast.jpg
3 - Allison_Taylor.jpg
3 - 24_one_shot_cover.jpg
3 - 24_Season_7_Cast.jpg
(hide)File talk
2 - 24_-_The_Game.jpg
1 - Example.jpg
(hide)MediaWiki talk
1 - Watchlist-details
(hide)Template
66 - AIV
46 - AIV/doc
22 - Vandalism_information
18 - 24_Characters
16 - MedcabTemplate
12 - WikiProject_24
12 - 0
10 - MedcabStatus
9 - UAA/doc
9 - UAA
(hide)Template talk
3 - Talk_header
3 - 0
2 - Dispute-resolution
2 - Tasks
2 - Did_you_know
2 - AIV
1 - Infobox_Jews
1 - Edit_protected
1 - Grammar
1 - Elementbox
(hide)Help
4 - Edit_toolbar
1 - Diff
1 - Pipe_trick
(hide)Help talk
5 - Using_talk_pages
(hide)Category
5 - Stub-Class_24_articles
4 - 24_articles_by_quality
4 - 24_(TV_series)_images
3 - 24_(TV_series)_characters
2 - Merge-Class_24_articles
2 - Start-Class_24_articles
2 - Wikipedia_Medcab_active_cases
2 - Frazioni_of_Italy_by_province
1 - Forced_disappearance
1 - Mechanics
(hide)Portal
4 - 24/Selected_picture
3 - 0
3 - 24/Selcted_Article
2 - 24/Featured_Article
2 - 24/Intro
1 - Republic_of_China
1 - Arts
1 - Contents/Overview/Culture_and_the_arts
1 - Technology/Selected_articles/2
1 - Science/Featured_picture/5
Executed in 3.30 second(s).
|
Total number of unique AfD pages edited by Steven Zhang: 212
Analyzed the last 50 votes by this user.
Keep votes: 2 (13.3%)
Delete votes: 4 (26.7%)
Speedy Keep votes: 0 (0.0%)
Speedy Delete votes: 0 (0.0%)
Merge votes: 1 (6.7%)
Redirect votes: 8 (53.3%)
Transwiki votes: 0 (0.0%)
Userfy votes: 0 (0.0%)
Number of AfD's where vote matched result : 12 (85.7%)
Number of AfD's where vote didn't match result : 0 (0.0%)
Number of AfD's where result was "No Consensus" : 2 (14.3%)This edit is made to look like it was made by the candidate. The IP address appears to locate to an entirely different continent than the one in which the candidate resides. Please do not be confused by this malicious effort. Pedro : Chat 08:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Even leaving aside the 2008 incident, the above comments reveal what is, to my mind, a rather unhealthy "cult of personality" around this user. An admin candidate who cannot be criticized, no matter how gently, without people popping up left and right to offer helpful non-sequiturs (oppose #2), bicker over technicalities (oppose #8), needle (#5) or just generally badger (#4) is, simply put, not healthy for the project, no matter how capable and trustworthy the candidate himself may or may not be. To put it another way, if Joe Blow Who Nobody Knows makes a weird block or a questionable XfD decision and I bring it up on AN/I, I can be reasonably confident that the subsequent discussion will be focused on the action itself (to the extent that AN/I discussion ever is). Here, I get the feeling that there'd be a lot of kneejerk reactions to support the decision of a guy people are personally buddies with, which leads to kneejerk reactions to oppose the decision of a guy who's part of the Wiki Cabal, which leads to kneejerk reactions to support a guy who's being unfairly targeted by the self-styled anti-cabalists, which leads to kneejerk reactions to oppose a guy who's being passionately defended by some other guy who made some bad blood on a random Talk page somewhere, which leads to... plenty of kneejerk reactions to go around, which itself leads to a lack of confidence on my part in the ensuing circus. Just too much emotion surrounding the candidate. I'm sorry, Steven. Badger Drink (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I guess I should offer my apologies to both Badger Drink and Steven. You see, I have very little experience at RfA, but I had somehow been under the impression that (given that this is not a "vote") this was a forum for discussion of a candidate's qualifications for the mop, and because in my (apparently twisted) life's experience, "discussion" consists of people offering viewpoints and countering those with other viewpoints, I somehow thought that I was correctly engaging in the process. Had I realized that I was participating in the creation of a new Stalin, I would have just kept my mouth shut, so as to protect the Wikipedia community from this cult of personality. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not quite sure I understand this oppose. If you have a criticism against Steven, that's valid, and you're free to oppose based on that - but opposing because you don't like how people are discussing the candidate? How is that Steven's fault in any way? m.o.p 02:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Badger, with all due respect, I'm pretty sure that the emotion is not surrounding Steven himself, and therefore not a buddy / cabal / wossname thing; it's surrounding the fact that a non-actual-damage-causing mistake, made by a teenager, years ago, is now being held against an adult candidate. One of the many criticisms of RfA is that ancient sins are dragged up as reasons to oppose, and here we are, illustrating yet again that this is true. That's why people are emotional. Injustice does make people emotional. We can't hold things this old against someone. Statute of limitations, kinda thing. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't listen to the IRC channels myself but recall some grumbling that there's a clique that hangs out there and which promotes their membership to become admins. The earlier trouble with passwords seemed to start on IRC. Is this the background to the badgering? Warden (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You can find "cliques" everywhere you look, if you want to! Anyone is, of course, welcome in IRC. But any theoretical clique member would have a hard job promoting me, for example, for adminship! I've made it abundantly clear in oh-so-many places that I'm "Never gonna be a Nadmin"! So nobody but nobody could suggest that I'm in a "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" situation. My actions here have far more to do with addressing the problems being worked on by an RfA Reform task force than any theoretical cabalistic tendencies. I'm not at all sure that other supporters would wholly appreciate the subtle suggestion of any kind of "!vote-rigging", either. My apologies, of course, if that's not what you were suggesting, but your edit summary of "Oppose re IRC" leaves little room for doubt. May I respectfully suggest that you strike that comment out? Either that or, alternatively, if you really do mean it, make an appropriate report, in the appropriate place, as to who you think is / are meatpuppets of whom. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Within the span of five hours there's already three reply-threads to this !vote, which somewhat illustrates the exact concern I was doing my best to eloquate. From top to bottom: Husky, thanks for the stream of histrionic bullshit nicely bookending a lovely reference to Josef Stalin. It definitely helps to promote a calm and rational discussion, and I find it a very positive contribution that does not in the slightest way reflect poorly on the maturity of some of the supporters telling us the candidate is mature. M.O.P., the fact that this certain "backing band" (for lack of a better term) follows the candidate is, unfortunately, the candidate's problem, though not necessarily his fault - an extreme example would be someone born without arms being denied a position as a soccer goalkeeper. Not the guy's fault, but definitely his problem. Pesky, there's a swarm of people offering very emotive responses in this particular RfA. I'm not sure how more clearly I can put it: I do not give a rat's shit why they're emotional or what drove them to participate in this RfA. The very fact that they're here is what troubles me about this candidate, full-stop, period, dot, end of thoughtstream. This leads me to believe that the discussion of any future issues - trivial or non - involving Steven in his administrative role will be a spectacular pain in the ass to slog through. The fact that certain people feel that the previous issues involving account security and judgment are non-trivial may, or may not, be cause for even more concern, depending on who one asks. My opinion about that issue is unimportant and a non-factor in my opposition. Badger Drink (talk) 09:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do appreciate your points, Badger. However, when people see something wrong happening, they are often likely to say so for no other reason than to point out that it's wrong. I know you don't care, but, having found that perfectly good-faith comments by supporters have resulted in IRC-based-conspiracy assumptions - accusations of wrongdoing which, as such, cannot be considered to be civil, and are, really, bordering on attacks undermining supporters, then something has gone very wrong indeed. I have trouble understanding, clearly, why people participating in an RfA is in any way a reason to oppose said RfA. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Goodness me! I didn't realise a candidate being popular was enough for an oppose vote! :P I don't even know Steven, but I've heard only good things about his work these days, so that will be the reasoning behind my vote. You're perfectly entitled to oppose for whatever reason you like, Badger Drink, and people questioning opposes is pretty common in RFA with most candidates so I'd disagree that it's a sign of something sinister, but opinions and all that. Best to leave this, when people start getting offended it's just going to spiral downhill until it gets silly. OohBunnies!Leave a message :) 10:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Pesky, your assertions that I'm claiming a conspiracy exists are downright ridiculous. I guess they make your defense seem a lot more valid - I'm sure Don Quixote felt a lot more important when he pretended those windmills were giants. It's also somewhat puzzling that you would say you "appreciate" my points, while dutifully opening up a thread on AN/I regarding my statement one hour later - it comes across as very insincere, like some form of forum shopping to squelch discussion. For someone incredibly eager to wikilink AGF, you sure seem clueless about what a "personal attack" really is, and your definition of civility is simplistic at best. It's central to my issue with this candidate - he has a lot of very rabid defenders who seem eager to cite whatever Trendy Policy of the Moment exists in their defense of him, without actually having a mature, adult understanding of those policies themselves. Badger Drink (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I wasn't asserting that you were claiming any kind of conspiracy - it was Warden's barely-veiled accusations of meatpuppetting (windmills?)to which I was referring. I understand your points quite well; my problem was not your points, but your lack of civility. As usual, in situations like that, I work first on the assumption that someone may simply have been having a bad day, and spend a little time seeing how they interact normally. All I found was a history of more and more of the same, with many complaints, hence my (only, to date) thread at AN/I for long-term civility issues. I don't go in for drama-mongering, it's not the way I work. But, regardless of what many may erroneously believe, there has never, to my knowledge, been any consensus that RfA (or, indeed, anywhere in Wikipedia) is exempt from the normal rules of basic good manners and civility. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You don't go for drama-mongering, you just call for a "civilty block" based on cherrypicking from four years of User Talk comments. I see. Thanks for the clarification! Badger Drink (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is obviously a deliberately provocative oppose designed specifically to attract the very badgering on which the eponymous opposer is basing his oppose. I think that the best course of action at this point would be to call it a day. —SW— babble 19:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the valuable and much-needed contribution. As somebody who's been here since 2007, working on the encyclopedia as opposed to working on finding new ways to make my signature a garish, unreadable eyesore, I am really glad to be called a troll and told, in so many words, that my opinion doesn't matter. Please keep up your wonderful contributions to RfA, Randy. Badger Drink (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Snotty, I think you got this one wrong dude, seriously. Badger's opinion matters as much as anyones. I don't think it was set out to be provocative, and I wouldn't be surprised at a civility complaint towards you from him were it to be forthcoming. Your comment is opinion, not fact. Don't treat it like it is. Badgering is becoming a very real problem here - i rarely see people supporting an RfA get badgered because the opposers don't understand why they're supporting, but vice versa, it's a different matter. We don't question your reasons, lay the hell off and don't question ours. BarkingFish 13:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]